In the lead-up to the upcoming presidential election, Vice President Kamala Harris is positioning herself as a champion for the American people. However, she insists that first, you must cast your vote for her. Only after securing the presidency in November will she roll up her sleeves to serve you and others across the nation.
During her tenure as President Biden’s second-in-command, consumer prices have soared, climbing over 20 percent since January 2021. Essentials like food, rent, and electricity have seen even steeper increases.
Despite her longstanding role in the current administration, many attribute the economic woes to Biden’s policies rather than Harris herself. Now, with an eye on the election, she has unveiled an ambitious plan—and she requires your support to implement it.
Once in the position of President, Harris asserts she will ease financial burdens. To entice potential voters, she promises $25,000 to help with the purchase of a first home and $6,000 for each newborn.
Moreover, she aims to tackle grocery prices directly. Harris has pledged to introduce a federal ban on price gouging in the food industry, blaming soaring grocery costs on corporate greed rather than considering the complexities of inflation, government spending, or monetary policies that have contributed to the current economic climate.
The implications of this federal ban on price gouging remain ambiguous, but it likely entails price reductions that could dip below production costs. Those familiar with basic economics can easily spot the fundamental issues with such a proposal.
Nevertheless, for uncritical voters, this platform of economic relief is likely to resonate.
A Political Strategy
Price controls have historically been a favored method for politicians looking to garner votes during economic hardship. While it may attract support from those struggling financially, the practical effects often lead to shortages and empty shelves—a consistently documented outcome.
Perhaps if Harris had chosen a different market to target—such as the luxury handbag industry, where excess pricing is more apparent—she might have made a more compelling argument.
In 2024, should every American, regardless of their immigration status, not have the right to own a luxury purse?
On the other hand, the grocery sector is notoriously challenging, characterized by slim profit margins that hover around 1 to 1.5 percent. Fierce competition and perishable goods like meat and dairy add to the hurdles. If grocers cannot sell their products before they spoil, they incur losses that can erase any potential profits—especially when faced with spikes in transportation expenses.
John D. Rockefeller, arguably America’s most shrewd businessman, left the produce industry early in his career after recognizing the limited advantages available in such a market.
Yet, Harris sees an opportunity within the grocery sector, aware that many are frustrated by the escalating costs they face at the checkout counter. She aims to harness this discontent to win votes.
Economic Irony
During her time with Biden, Harris learned to maneuver public sentiment effectively by attributing rising prices to corporate greed. This tactic provides a simplistic explanation for the current inflation, shifting blame away from governmental policies that have failed.
In her narrative, rising prices equal greed—an easy connection for voters to grasp. However, if corporations are opportunistic in their pricing, does it not imply that government entities, too, are equally driven by profit motives?
Consider the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) as a case in point. When the forever stamp was released in 2007, it could be acquired for just 41 cents. As of January of this year, that price climbed from 66 to 68 cents—representing a 3 percent hike, and an astonishing 66 percent increase from its original cost.
Indeed, the USPS upped the forever stamp rate yet again, now set at 73 cents, culminating in a total price rise of 10.6 percent this year alone—an eye-popping 78 percent since the introduction of the forever stamp.
Handouts for Votes
Currently, the USPS is operating at a staggering deficit, reporting a $6.5 billion loss for fiscal year 2023 and forecasting a $6.3 billion loss in 2024. Yet, backed by taxpayer dollars, it continues operating despite these setbacks.
These losses are essentially covered by state deficits, which inflate the economy by borrowing against future consumption. Therefore, the USPS’s practices assure rising costs for forever stamps and other consumer goods.
Harris attributes these rising costs to corporate greed, but is that a reasonable conclusion?
A more nuanced understanding reveals that the devaluation of money is at play, driven by unchecked government spending. Targeting grocers and promising handouts in exchange for votes may only exacerbate the decline of the dollar’s worth.
While Harris may not always exhibit sharp critical thinking, her price control proposals are not without strategic intent. Historical evidence from various countries demonstrates that central planning tends to stifle growth and diminish individual creativity. Over time, the end result is often societal desperation.
Harris and her advisors recognize this all too well—and, frankly, they seem indifferent to the repercussions.
Their objective? To consolidate control.
In pursuit of votes, Harris will offer handouts that entice the populace, banking on the naivety of voters to secure her position. Just wait and see.
[Editor’s note: It’s striking how a few strategic decisions can lead to transformative wealth. As I prepare to make another significant decision again, I’m eager to share how you can do the same. >> Click here to learn more.]
Sincerely,
MN Gordon
for Economic Prism
